Do I need more memory?

[anton]

Hi,

Could you please help me understand the memory info in XP?

First about my system. I have a AMD Duron 1GHz machine
with 256 MB SDRAM. At startup according to the task manager it
uses about 150 MB. Ive read thats ok because a deal of it
is just used for caching purposes.

So when I use my computer it normally uses around 5-600 MB of the
770 MB it has (that is 520 MB page file) If the page file is less
it normally complains, the commit charge peak shows 780 MB right now.
and total 530 MB

I am not specially happy with the perforamance. I dont know
if its that I need more memory or if my harddrive is slow
maxtor 40 GB, 7200 rpm.

Physical memory shows: 261616 KB total, 41476 KB Available and
55920 KB system cache. Kernel memory 31 MB total, 23 MB paged,
8 non paged. If I add up the Virtual memory size column I get
around 430 MB, and the mem usage column around 180 MB
shouldnt the VM + MEM column add up to the 530 MB total commnit
charge? 180 + 430 is 610 MB. SO I guess I dont understand it.

Should I buy more memory? performance is much better at startup.

thank for your replies

 

[Mick]

With the very low cost of memory now, I would say a big YES - go for it.
Depending on what applications you use, 256 is cutting it tight with XP.

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi,

Could you please help me understand the memory info in XP?

First about my system. I have a AMD Duron 1GHz machine
with 256 MB SDRAM. At startup according to the task manager it
uses about 150 MB. Ive read thats ok because a deal of it
is just used for caching purposes.

So when I use my computer it normally uses around 5-600 MB of the
770 MB it has (that is 520 MB page file) If the page file is less
it normally complains, the commit charge peak shows 780 MB right now.
and total 530 MB

I am not specially happy with the perforamance. I dont know
if its that I need more memory or if my harddrive is slow
maxtor 40 GB, 7200 rpm.

Physical memory shows: 261616 KB total, 41476 KB Available and
55920 KB system cache. Kernel memory 31 MB total, 23 MB paged,
8 non paged. If I add up the Virtual memory size column I get
around 430 MB, and the mem usage column around 180 MB
shouldnt the VM + MEM column add up to the 530 MB total commnit
charge? 180 + 430 is 610 MB. SO I guess I dont understand it.

Should I buy more memory? performance is much better at startup.

thank for your replies

The performance benefits from having more memory are primarily
achieved because the added memory eliminates or at least substantially
reduces the actual usage of the page file; that is the actual writing
out of memory pages from RAM to the page file so that RAM can be used
for other, currently more important purposes. And then when those
memory pages are needed again later they first have to be loaded back
into RAM from the page file, and probably something else will have to
be moved out the page file to make room.

So if there is no substantial level of activity in terms of memory
pages being written out to and/or loaded back from the page file then
there is not going to be much in the way of a performance benefit from
adding more RAM.

But if there is a substantial amount of this type of paging activity
then adding more memory will reduce or perhaps even eliminate this,
thereby improving overall performance.

One effective way of gauging the extent of the paging activity is to
look at the actual usage of the paging file = how much of the paging
file space consists of memory pages that have been moved out from RAM.
You can download a free utility to measure this from
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm or from
http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks

A page file usage value of 50 mb or more on a regular basis is usually
indicative of a significant amount of paging activity and in that case
adding more RAM would be beneficial.

This applies regardless of how much or how little RAM is currently
installed in the computer.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[anton]

thanks ron. Well I think that was the case yes, because com automatically
broadened the
page files many times. So way bigger than 50 mb. anyhow now I have 786 MB
RAM.
I wonder if its really as fast as before now, but there is at least now clog
up. it seems
to run more consistent. as responsive as stratup even when its been up long
and uses
the memory consuming programs that I use.

thanks for the recommendation...=)